The lead monitor wanted to follow up on some allegations of ill treatment that the NPM had previously received as well as raise other issues from the visit. She had earlier raised with the director of the Athens detention facilities the case of a detainee who had died in the centre two years previously. She intended to establish what had been done to avert such deaths. The director said that the man was a drug addict and did not ask for any help. He was brought in to the centre on a Friday and died on the Sunday. There was no doctor present in the facility over the weekend. The lead monitor suggested that people who were sick should be taken directly to hospital and that detainees should be screened by healthcare staff as soon as they are detained. The director later said that he felt the majority of cases transferred the hospital were not genuine, saying that ‘19 out of 20 just want fresh air’. Sometimes the centre sent people to hospital in police vehicles and the NPM said that they would recommend detainees be moved in ambulances instead. The issue of toilet paper was also raised with the centre director, who said that he had applied for funding for more of it. Summary Conditions in both of the visited facilities in Greece were poor and access to rights appeared minimal. Petrou Ralli in particular has been identified several times by both the NPM and the CPT as inadequate for detainees, and their findings were echoed in our first report (Bhui, Bosworth and Fili 2018). There was little sense in either facility of a duty of care and there were few visitors from outside to help ensure some level of scrutiny. The monitoring visits both lasted for two to three hours and conversations with detainees during that period were generally superficial. The NPM did not look at all of the residential areas of Petrou Ralli. They spent little time with detainees at either centre and did not examine any documentation. However, the NPM was still developing its methodology. The monitoring visits continue to be very short. Both of those we witnessed lasted only for two to three hours and conversations with detainees during that period were generally superficial. The NPM did not look at all of the residential areas of Petrou Ralli. They spent little time with detainees at either centre and did not request or examine any documentation. Instead, the NPM spent a good deal of time with the managers, especially at Petrou Ralli. Rather than concentrating on detention conditions and needs of detainees, they worked hard to maintain constructive relationships with facility staff. The NPM raised cases of ill treatment identified from complaints or other sources before the visit. The director’s responses gave little assurance that the concerns were being taken seriously. There was no evident consideration of the possibility of reprisals. Drawing on knowledge-exchange visits and collaboration with other NPMs and human rights organisations in Europe and abroad, the Greek NPM has worked on a number of concerns raised here. They have increased the duration of their inspections from one day to two days. This additional time allows NPM staff to spend more time listening to detainees and staff understanding the detention environment. They have also developed and implemented a short detainee survey with eleven questions, inspired by HMIP’s longer and more established survey methodology (Fili and Bosworth, forthcoming in 2019). Furthermore, the increase in the NPM’s financial resources and a number of international collaborations have made the NPM’s work more sustainable and helped it to develop strategic planning and programming (for more on their plans for 2019 see Fili and Bosworth 2019). 29